[ad_1]
LOS ANGELES – Federal charges against three alleged members of a violent white supremacism group accused of inciting violence at political rallies in California were dismissed by a judge who ruled that their actions amounted to freedom of expression protected by the Constitution.
Prosecutors said members of the Rise Above movement conspired to riot by using the Internet to coordinate hand-to-hand combat training, going to demonstrations, and attacking protesters at rallies in Huntington Beach. Berkeley and San Bernardino. The group also posted videos to celebrate the violence and recruit members.
Despite the "hateful and toxic ideology" of the group, a rarely used criminal law adopted as part of the defense of freedom of expression and manifestations of the Vietnam War, Judge Cormac J. Carney ruled Monday in the US District Court in Los Angeles.
Carney said the 1968 riot law – used on a massive scale to pursue the "Chicago Eight", including Abbie Hoffman, Bobby Seale and Tom Hayden for conspiring to incite a riot at the 1968 Democratic National Convention , was unconstitutionally partly criminalized advocating violence without riot or imminent crime. He added that prosecutors had quoted the information published by men on social media months before and after the rallies.
"Some articles express disgusting and hateful ideas," wrote Carney. "Other publications advocate the use of violence – most, if not all, are protected words."
The judge dismissed the charges and ordered the release of the alleged leader of the RAM, Robert Rundo, and the alleged member, Robert Boman. The charges against Aaron Eason, who was free of bail, were also dropped.
The defense attorney, John McNicholas, who represented Eason, stated that his client was never a member of the RAM and had not committed any crime.
He added that the two men thought they were doing well at conservative rallies to counter the antifascists known as Antifa, who "committed acts of violence to repress words with which they disagreed". He criticized the prosecutors for not filing a complaint against members of Antifa who, according to him, incited violence and watered the participants in the rally with pepper spray.
"Beyond the unconstitutional nature of the law, nothing in the case makes any sense, as the people who instigated the riot have never been charged with the crime. a federal offense, "said McNicholas.
The Los Angeles decision has alarmed groups that closely follow the activity of white supremacy and fears that the court's victory will not empower the group known for its anti-Semitic and racist ideas.
RAM's report on Gab, a social media network known to be a haven for racists and anti-Semites, praised the layoffs and announced the revival of its Right Brand clothing line.
"This highlights their sense of defense," said Joanna Mendelson of the Anti-Defamation League. "This win on the field has the potential to give them renewed energy and reinvigorate the group as a whole."
Prosecutors were disappointed with the decision and the grounds for appeal, said spokesman Ciaran McEvoy.
A federal judge in Virginia came to a conclusion opposite Carney's in a similar case involving other California RAM members who participated in violent white nationalist rallies in both states.
Four alleged members of the group pleaded guilty and admitted to beating and firing counter-protesters as white nationalists led a torch-lit march at the University of Virginia and the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville in August 2017.
The defendants in these cases plan to appeal on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional because it is too broad, vague and violates the Protected Activities of the First Amendment, said Lisa Lorish, federal public defense assistant in Charlottesville. She expects the court of appeal to accept Carney's reasoning.
There are plausible arguments in support of both decisions – Carney interpreting the law as a whole and Judge Norman Moon, in close connection, in Virginia, said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. Angeles.
The conflict between the opposing judgments could be brought to the Supreme Court if both judgments were appealed and the circuit courts drew different conclusions, he said. But it is far from certain.
In the California case, a fourth defendant, Tyler Laube, who pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge in November, filed court filings Tuesday to withdraw his guilty plea and have the charges dropped. against him after Carney encouraged him there, lawyer Jerome Haig said.
Laube was facing nearly three years in prison after confessing that as a member of the group, he had assaulted counter-protesters at a "Make America Great Again" rally in Huntington Beach in 2017.
Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino, said that if members were discussing a criminal plan and taking steps to carry it out, their speech was not protected.
"The Supreme Court has essentially ruled that hate speech is protected, but that violence and conspiracy are not," Levin said. "It's there that I think the judge may have misinterpreted this one."
[ad_2]
Source link